Slave Revolution in a post American Civil War CSA

The American Civil War ends in a draw, the democrats in the south split, and so do the northern republicans. The slaves of the south rise up and overthrow the CSA in a violent revolution. The first black president of the CSA signs an order calling for the expulsion of all whites. How does the north react?
 

d32123

Banned
There aren't enough blacks in the CSA to pull off a successful Revolution. They might succeed in seceding if the CSA is weak enough and they get Northern backing.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
There aren't enough blacks in the CSA to pull off a successful Revolution.

Actually, there are. In many places slaves constituted over 50% of the population. The problem was not numbers but an inability to organize and communicate, as well as the strenuous efforts by the slave-owning class to prevent slaves from becoming literate.

Now if the war ends as a Confederate victory in late 1863 or 1864, the situation will change, because you will have had hundreds of thousands of slaves freed by the Union army, with idealistic volunteers teaching many to read and write. Most importantly, tens of thousands joined the Union army, learned to use firearms, and were taught military discipline.

They might succeed in seceding if the CSA is weak enough and they get Northern backing.

They may not get Northern backing, though. Even at the height of the war, support for abolition was lukewarm in many parts of the Union outside of New England. Many classes, including new immigrants from Europe, saw free blacks as nothing but competitors for low wage jobs. In the event of a large-scale slave revolt in the South, it would not surprise me if the United States sat on the sidelines.
 
They may not get Northern backing, though. Even at the height of the war, support for abolition was lukewarm in many parts of the Union outside of New England. Many classes, including new immigrants from Europe, saw free blacks as nothing but competitors for low wage jobs. In the event of a large-scale slave revolt in the South, it would not surprise me if the United States sat on the sidelines.

I think that if the Confederacy won the Civil War - or the War of Southern Independence or whatever it'd be called - the North would be bitter and hateful enough against the South to support any slave rebellion south of the border. To win the war, the South would've done at least one thing that the North would be really upset about and seek vengeance for, no matter the ally.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
I think that if the Confederacy won the Civil War - or the War of Southern Independence or whatever it'd be called - the North would be bitter and hateful enough against the South to support any slave rebellion south of the border. To win the war, the South would've done at least one thing that the North would be really upset about and seek vengeance for, no matter the ally.

Why is there always a presupposition of perpetual Northern hatred towards an independent Confederacy? Britain doesn't despise the United States. France doesn't despise Algeria or Vietnam. While I would expect relations to be very tense in the early post-war period, after an independent Confederacy has existed for a decade or so, it would become the normal state of affairs. Eventually the Northern people would get used to it.
 
The problem is that the slaves have everything stacked against them. Handing some poor clod a gun does not make him an instant soldier. Some of the slaves may have some military training in the Union Army but the vast majority do not. They don't have a chain of command while the CSA Army does. They don't have telegraph lines, the CSA Army does. The CSA Army has very poor logistics but they have virtually none. A slave revolt while fairly likely is overwhelmingly likely to be crushed.
 
Why is there always a presupposition of perpetual Northern hatred towards an independent Confederacy? Britain doesn't despise the United States. France doesn't despise Algeria or Vietnam. While I would expect relations to be very tense in the early post-war period, after an independent Confederacy has existed for a decade or so, it would become the normal state of affairs. Eventually the Northern people would get used to it.

The US is thousands of miles away from GB and was never considered part of GB proper. Algeria is across the Mediterranean Sea from France and Vietnam is thousands of miles away and neither were considered by the average Frenchman as part of France proper. The CSA would be right next door and was part of the USA proper. These are huge differences!
 
The American Civil War ends in a draw, the democrats in the south split, and so do the northern republicans. The slaves of the south rise up and overthrow the CSA in a violent revolution. The first black president of the CSA signs an order calling for the expulsion of all whites. How does the north react?

the problems with this question is:

- how did the CSA win without experiencing slave revolts like they did OTL
- why would the newly revolted slave state still call itself the CSA and maintain its borders against the north and instituations without the whites manageing to revolt themselves
 
They'd need the poor whites to launch a succesful revolution. Seems a little bit unlikely. Need a good PoD.

Correct and the odds of Poor Whites and Blacks fighting on the same side is very, very long. You may well have a three sided CSA Civil War: the Poor Whites vs the Planters vs the Slaves. If this happens or indeed any CSA civil war happens it is very likely the USA will let the parties fight each other for a while then conquer the area to "restore order and restore the Union".
 
Why is there always a presupposition of perpetual Northern hatred towards an independent Confederacy? Britain doesn't despise the United States. France doesn't despise Algeria or Vietnam. While I would expect relations to be very tense in the early post-war period, after an independent Confederacy has existed for a decade or so, it would become the normal state of affairs. Eventually the Northern people would get used to it.

I agree with you. The concept of continued bad relations between the US and the CS appears to be a symptom tied with concepts of American exceptionalism and rampant nationalism - plain and simple.
 
I agree with you. The concept of continued bad relations between the US and the CS appears to be a symptom tied with concepts of American exceptionalism and rampant nationalism - plain and simple.

You seem to ignore the fact that they would be 1) Right next to each other and 2) Have large armies. Add in the fact that a lot of political mileage could be gained by blaming the other side for any problem that occurs and you have a recipie for long term hostile relations. The conditions are much closer to India/Pakistan (countries that come from the same culture and are right next to each other) than GB and the US (Countries with the same culture but across an entire ocean from each other) and even less like France/Vietnam(countries with different cultures thousands of miles away from each other.
 
Why is there always a presupposition of perpetual Northern hatred towards an independent Confederacy? Britain doesn't despise the United States. France doesn't despise Algeria or Vietnam. While I would expect relations to be very tense in the early post-war period, after an independent Confederacy has existed for a decade or so, it would become the normal state of affairs. Eventually the Northern people would get used to it.
France despised the Germans after 1871 until 1918, and weren't to happy with them even after getting back the little sliver of land they held a grudge over.
 
France despised the Germans after 1871 until 1918, and weren't to happy with them even after getting back the little sliver of land they held a grudge over.

Exactly, and that is the norm. There are a few exceptions but this is what usually happens when land changes hands. This is particularly true when the neighbors are armed to the teeth. Because of the fugitive slave problem that is what would happen with the USA and CSA. The CSA would need large numbers of troops on the borders to keep slaves from escaping, particularly after large numbers of them started roaming the countryside after running off with no men around to stop them. The USA will need the troops to keep an eye on CSA troops and to prevent the CSA from kidnapping its citizens.
 

d32123

Banned
Actually, there are. In many places slaves constituted over 50% of the population. The problem was not numbers but an inability to organize and communicate, as well as the strenuous efforts by the slave-owning class to prevent slaves from becoming literate.

I thought the OP meant a Haiti style slave revolution where the entire Confederacy is taken over by the slaves, which is pretty much impossible. That's why I mentioned specific parts of the Confederacy which were majority black being able to secede if the CSA is weak enough. It would definitely still need Northern backing, though, because one side has all the guns and that's the slave owners.
 
I thought the OP meant a Haiti style slave revolution where the entire Confederacy is taken over by the slaves, which is pretty much impossible. That's why I mentioned specific parts of the Confederacy which were majority black being able to secede if the CSA is weak enough. It would definitely still need Northern backing, though, because one side has all the guns and that's the slave owners.

Also the training and the communications and the chain of command. The weapons are only the begining of what is needed for a slave army to be effective. Personally I don't think it could be done even in the slave majority states simply because they don't have a big enough majority to overcome their other weaknesses.
 
Top